Do journalists' political donations (mostly Democratic) = news bias?

Anyone perusing the media in recent days might have gotten the vague impression that someone named Barack Obama has been on some kind of foreign trip somewhere.

Funny how that information somehow seeped through despite all the other competing stories about the presumptive Democratic candidate for president visiting Iraq and Afghanistan.

And there were other distracting stories about a freshman senator from Illinois meeting with Israeli and Palestinian politicians. And a former state senator, also coincidentally from Illinois, speaking to a large crowd of Germans in Berlin for some reason.

And then an African American lawyer from Chicago had a real bon ami-bon ami moment with the shorter president of France before moving on to Britain today to smile and do that....

...walking out of the door of No. 10 Downing Street photo moment.

Oh, wait, those weren 't competing stories. They were all about the same guy. And in case you didn't get enough of him last week in a gazillion "Exclusive" TV interviews, there's at least one more coming Sunday morning, also somehow Exclusive. In that one on "Meet the Press" he'll probably tell Tom Brokaw that his mind wasn't changed by the trip from the pre-trip opinions he announced last week.

All of this prompted Investors Business Daily to publish a trenchant op-ed by William Tate that reported on his examination of Federal Election Commission records for donations by journalists.

You'll never guess what he says he found -- 235 journalists donating to Democrats while only 20 gave to Republicans for a total of $225,563 to Democrats and $16,298 to the the GOP-inclined.

That's small potatoes moneywise in terms of the nearly $1 billion collected so far in this election cycle. But Tate sees a valuable built-in bias among Democratic journalists for candidates of their party.

Last summer Bill Dedman at MSNBC did a massive research project, examining political donations by journalists over several years and found a similar overwhelming number of Democratic journalists (125 of 143 political donors while only 16 gave to Republican candidates and two others were bi-.

At these emotional times of presidential campaigns, certain to grow even more intense before Nov. 4, bias is often in the eyes of the beholder.

Those same donation figures could also be used to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Republican journalists are a whole lot stingier than their liberal colleagues.

--Andrew Malcolm

Comments

[seneca69]

Some of the comments posted are a clinic for why the democrat party, (though in temporary ascension) is doomed.

The growing Independent movement is feeding off citizen disenchantment with both parties.

Still, the audacity of contempt displayed by leftist/democrat journalists and those who hire and empower them is a current event news event that languishes. Me thinks it might even be a criminal issue wherein businesses with 1st Amendment protections use that status to steer news content to favor their ideology.

What ever happened to "objective" reporting. Like them or not, O'Reilly and Dobbs are the only purely independent purveyors of clear thinking reporting we have on the tube. Cambell Brown reminds me of the farmer's "lipstick on a pig" cliche, and Keesh Obermouth is merely an infected pimple on Crissspth sMathews hind end!

As for money, people are starting to wise up. The richest people on the planet are dems. They've turned virtual slavery of minorities into an artform.

Independently yours,

seneca69

[Simon]

Hmmm.. some readers seem to suggest that Republicans comprise of less intelligent people. So it surprises me that the so-called "intelligent" democrats are incapable of winning an election in 8 years; can be easily fooled into voting for the war; and make ludicrous claims (e.g., Clinton's campaign about eluding gunfire). Hmmm. perhaps Democrats are delusional which explains why they constitute the majority (read recent report on the abysmal math and science scores about business-minded (i.e., loud-mouthed) Americans).

[Steven]

Journalists are in the business of reporting on the events of the world, and it has long been known that reality has a liberal bias.

It should come as no surprise that those most knowledgeable about reality have a liberal bias.

[Jim Hammer]

The light tone of Mr. Malcom's article adds to the surreal sense surrounding this topic. For something so central to our national well-being as getting objective news, you would think the glaring evidence of the un-objectivity of it all would be in banner headlines around the world. A hard-hitting 60 minutes expose would be unearthing the ugly truth, etc. The reason there are no banner headlines or 60 minutes piece is obvious: they would be pointing the finger at themselves for extremely egregious behavior.

[seneca69]

___I personally feel better when I do not watch or listen to the major networks. With the exception of Lou Dobbs, and Fox news all of the rest are a lost cause.
Not only do I refuse to listen to their gushing nonsense I am also boycotting their sponsors and making my disgust public. I am joined by millions.___

Great post! Two thumbs waaaay up!

seneca69

[paul in NY]

Who trusts the main-stream media for unbiased reporting? With the advent of 24 hour news, scores of cable news commentators of all political beliefs, the MSM needs to take a position, and they have come down firmly as LEFTIST.

At least lets not pretend they don't have an agenda, OK?

[Bob]

Owl wrote:

"Some causes that "democrats/democratic ideology" supported and that "republicans/republican ideology" "needed to learn more about.":

Abolitionism
Female Suffrage
integration
environmentalism"
-----------------------------
I'll comment on just two of these:

Abolitionism:

The Republican Party was founded based on the abolition movement. It was predominently southern Democrats who founded the KKK.

Integration:

It was southern Democrat governors who actively blocked school desegration. It was a Republican president who sent in National Guard troops to ensure that integration occurred.

Senate filibusters of civil rights legislation were conducted by southern Democrat senators (Al Gore, Sr., Robert Byrd, etc). Republicans had higher percentages voting for civil rights legislation than Democrats did.

[M.J. Parker]

It's an open secret that the Federal Election Commission's criteria for inclusion in their database is a contribution (or series of contributions) totaling $200 or more. Anything less than that and it's very likely that you won't show up in their database—I know my contributions don't.

See: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/5/12/231612/123/39/514565

The upshot of that? The data you and other reporters are using to comment on political donations from journalists is utterly flawed, and a poor metric for measuring any supposed "media bias." There's no way of knowing exactly how many journalists have contributed to political campaigns, given this data set, and any attempts to identify trends in such incomplete data should be labeled inconclusive at best.

My guess? There are probably a lot more journalists donating in small amounts on _both_ sides of the aisle than the FEC database is reporting. You know what you should be pushing for? For the FEC to disclose—in writing, on its website—its criteria/cutoff point for inclusion in the database. Or—even better—for more stringent disclosure standards for all political campaigns. More transparency on all fronts from the government and candidates themselves, rather than this spurious attack on supposedly Democratic journalists.

The thing you don't know is whether one party or the other happens to have more lax internal standards of reporting, or whether campaigns are deliberately (or, perhaps due to lax standards of their own, unintentionally) fudging the data. That would require a more in-depth probe—something you certainly haven't done here.

Not only that, donating to Barack Obama or John McCain, respectively, doesn't make one a Democrat or Republican. Many independents donate to the candidate they believe will be best in office. Further, many of the donations you're "reporting," you'll notice if you actually search the FEC's database, are to local candidates, for many of whom party affiliation is only a small part of their overall platform.

Further, on a percentage basis, of the thousands of working journalists in this country, a couple hundred journalist contributors is a tiny number. What percentage would you say constitutes enough to say there's a bias in the media at large? Where do you draw the line? And where do you draw the line between the personal lives and public lives of journalists? That's where the real discussion of ethics lies, and you've completely failed to address it. Way to sidestep the very large and nebulous question of what standard we truly should be holding journalists to, and where journalists' professional lives end and their personal lives begin.

This story is an interesting idea, to be sure, and I'm certain the headline on this blog post has drawn thousands of people to your website today who otherwise would not have visited. But seriously, I expect better from a major metropolitan daily. At very least you should have included some discussion of potential discrepancies in the data. But no... you just took someone else's reporting as a jumping-off point for discussing this in a shallow manner without actually bothering to research the relevant facts yourself. And topped it off with some fluff about Obama's recent travels abroad.

You know what'll help the cachet of journalists everywhere? If people like you who happen to have a big megaphone do your homework before writing things like this. This could be a far more interesting story than what you've written, but you'll never know if you don't investigate further and raise the bar yourself.

[Bob Kaye]

Has the so-called "Mainstream Media" (LA Times, NY Times, SF Chronicle) figured out yet why they are losing readers (and revenue) by the truckload. Apparently not.

Could it be that just about every conservative (and a lot of moderates) knows that these "newspapers" are completely biased against conservatives and the GOP? Anyone with a room temperature IQ knows that the MSM is in the tank for the libs.

[CJ]

"all one has to do is look at the large media outlets, TV stations, news papers, and most importantly their parent companies. When one looks at whom these companies are donating to it is most likely to be the GOP"

Thats a laugh. According to capitaleye.org, Discovery Communications (Discovery Channel, The Learning Channel, Travel Channel, BBC America) 90% of their donations are to Democrats.

Viacom (CBS, MTV, VH1, BET, CMT, Commedy Central, Nickelodeon, Noggin, Paramount Pictures, Infinity Radio Broadcasting) 81% to Democrats.

USA Interactive (Home Shopping Network, Expedia, TicketMaster, CitySearch, Evite) 80% of their donations are to Democrats.

NBC (CNBC, MSNBC, USA Network, Telemundo, Bravo, Sci-Fi Channel, Universal Studios) 77% of their political donations are to Democrats.

CNN 71% of their donations for more than the last 5 years are to Democrats

Hearst (ESPN, A&E, Lifetime, Cosmopolitan, Good Housekeeping, Oprah's Magazine, Redbook, Seventeen, Town&Country, SmartMoney, Local Broadcasting) 68% of their donations are to Democrats

Sony (Sony Pictures, Columbia Records, Epic Records, Legacy Records, Playstation, Electronics, Individual TV Shows: Seinfeld, Mad About You, Jepoardy, Wheel-of-Fortune, etc.) 67% of their donations are to Democrats

AOL Time Warner (Warner Brothers, Time Magazine, AOL, New Line Cinema, HBO, Turner Broadcasting) 63% of their donations are to Democrats

Cablevision (Madison Square Garden, Radio City Music Hall, NY Knicks, NY Rangers, Local Programming) 59% of all their political donations go to Democrats

Liberty Media (QVC, Starz Encore, Court TV, Game Show Network) 57%of all their political donations go to Democrats

Disney (ABC, Disney Movies) 55% of all their political donations go to Democrats

(Of course Clear Channel, being the one exception, is 75% donations to Republicans)

[Savea Metusela]

Republicans are a lot smarer in the long run than their immoral liberal numnuts. Almost every great leap forward historically in American society can be attributable to Republicanism and its benign compassionate efforts.

[matt]

Complaining about liberal bias is a tactic of conservatives and does not deserve to be taken seriously.

Conservatives have their own media conduits and cable channels. The collusion between conservative politicians and conservative media is far more entrenched and organized than their liberal counterparts.

Why was a Fox News correspondant hired to work for the republican administration?

Why is the media strategist for Nixon/Reagan/HW Bush running a cable news channel?

The question of bias needs to be addressed with conservatives as well.

[Bitter Nation]

I agree with some of the comments above that McCain has to do something if he wants to get media coverage.

Mr McCain, get off your a--, and away from you 4-day work week, and do something !!! Or are you incapabale of putting out the stamina that the job of president entails ?

[Rebecca Fensholt]

Personally, I find the most shocking thing in this election's news coverage to be the lack of stories concerning McCain. How many stories were printed over his insistence on using a racial slur, or his jokes about sending cigarettes to Iran to more broadly circulate lung cancer? If Obama said anything like that, it would be all over every newspaper and television station and he would lose this election in a second. If anyone is being treated unfairly with a positive bias, it's John McCain.

[CJ]

"On the flip side of this article all one has to do is look at the large media outlets, TV stations, news papers, and most importantly their parent companies. When one looks at whom these companies are donating to it is most likely to be the GOP."

When one looks at whom these companies are donating to, it turns out to be mostly the DNC.

[Jeff Healey]

Do scientists' employment by cigarette manufacturers = bias?

[Pat Egan]

"Conservative-leaning journalists tended to greater generosity. Ann Stewart Banker, a producer for Bill O'Reilly at Fox News Channel, gave $5,000 to Republicans. Financial columnist Liz Peek at The New York Sun gave $90,000 to the Grand Old Party" ("Journalists dole out cash to politicians (quietly)
News organizations diverge on handling of political activism by staff" written by Bill Dedman
Investigative reporter MSNBC). This is a quote from one of your sources, cited in your article.

Your last line may have been attempt at humor, but it certainly reveals your bias. Your line implies that there are an equal amount of Democrat and Republican reporters in the newsroom, but the Republicans are stingy and don't give money. The Dedman piece implies (I say "imply" since his investigation was not a scientific statistical analysis) that there is not an equal amount of Republican and Democrat reporters. Dedman is trying to say that there are MORE Democrat reporters. Therefore, you conclusion that Republicans are stingy is either an attempt at humor or a non-sequitur.

Your bias reminds me of an English instructor at a local college. I complained that too many of the English teachers were liberal with little to no conservative instructors. She corrected me, proudly claiming that there were actually two full time professors who were known to be Republicans. End of story. She won her case. I was wrong. Conservatives were represented. To her, two conservatives balanced out a faculty of 28 other instructors who were liberal Democrats.

[BillCarson]

Sound like typical right-wing "cherry picked" data.

How about asking Bill O'Reilly (The highest rated show on cable news), or Rush Limbaugh (The #1 show on radio), or Sean Hannity, Brit Hume, Michael Savage, Robert Novak, Chris Wallace, Neil Cavuto, etc etc.

Not to mention the CEOs of the big 5 new corporations who donate over 2 to 1 in favor of republicans.

Left-wing bias, give me a break!

[Nancy in Michigan]

Reporters may give marginally more to the Democratic Party, but they are still answerable to their publishers and stock holders who give them their paychecks. So they have to stay even handed. They will get slammed in the Letters to the Editors if they don't. Not to mention the paper's advertisers must be satisfied, so they can't get too far out there. You could even make the point, that as investigators of the public realm, they know more about what's going on, and if that makes them more likely to support Democrats, that says something.

[Ernie]

It's interesting that many people have posted that Dems are more intelligent that Repubs. Is it possible then that Dems belong to the elite group which means that they need to "take care" of the remaining folks?

[Seph]

So are we to believe that all of these folks made individual decisions to go overseas and cover Obama based on their own biases are we? Journalists are employees. Let's see some statistics about the donating habits and political leanings of the folks that actually decide what the journalists go out and cover.

Same old tired straw man.

[dave]

(yes, some people did notice obama's presidential campaign logo. complete with the remodeling of the american flag as a new world order keyhole tunnel vision. though all the bright colors are clearly there. covering what seems to indicate the orb of the whole barren world in fiery red, and white stripes in parallel alignment denoting enforced conformity; and with what seems to indicate a bright celestial body in the center rising above the horizon; the stars of the federal states invisible, and all sovereignty gone, and it would seem all nations blown and swept away as well... and yet, the spectacle is a mere projection in a bubble, and would only exist to those trapped within, their perception confined to a false reduced perspective. the whole symbolic setting being shown as an illusion by the 'celestial body' not illuminating the dark outside, but itself being the center of the delusion, and its blinding force, blurring and distorting true perspective. a vision of a prison planet that knows no freedom, but cannot see its bondage. there are no shadows on the walls due to the blinding artificial light. the entrance sealed, the exit blocked, it's like a tomb. buried alive - is that enlightenment - or hell?
is that logo an update version of a certain red flag featuring a white disc with a black inverted swastika?)

[Edward Craig]

Who reporters contribute to concerns me much less than who publishers (i.e. Rupert Murdoch) slander.

[Nick]

Not to interject facts into an ideological debate, but this comment caught my attention:

"Maybe it's because most journalists have to have a degree, Malcolm. Educated and informed people tend to be Democrats."

Actually, it's the opposite, see the chart at: http://people-press.org/commentary/?analysisid=95

The more educated you are, and/or the more money you make for yourself instead of relying on social welfare and government handouts, and [interestingly] the younger you are, the more likely you are to be a Republican (statistically).

Now, you could certainly argue that the news is more liberally inclined because they themselves are dumb and catering to dumb people generally, which would be more supported by the actual facts, but given your initial mis-information, I'd guess you'll probably argue something else instead.

[Kathy]

There's not just bias when it comes to Obama. There has been outrageous bias when it comes to anything or anyone liberal in the media for quite a few years. I see it as propaganda pure and simple.

[DiAnne]

Well so what - the media are OWNED by rich Republicans such as Rupert Murdoch and FOX has its news and views piped straight in from the White House, as Scott McClellan just revealed (it was no surprise - he only confirmed it.)

After what this poor country has been through, I HOPE the media has a liberal bias (which I doubt) and that Obama wins by a landslide.

[jim 234]

The media, the kingmakers, the reporters, the fouth estate. Think about their influence and then look at their qualifications.... they have none. They need no degree, they hold no oath of office, they have to get no licenses, they are accountable to no one. And here they are, these talking heads, telling the voters who they should vote for. It's no wonder they donate to the party that promises so much and delivers so little, they are of the same cut of cloth.

[Sharon]

These journalist are close to facts of a situation more than the average voter. They are also educated - usually with college degree. They investigate the candidates.

I do not consider this study which gives which party journalists are backing tells me much. So many other factors need to be considered. I am professionally very familiar with scientific studies and components of a study to evaluate possible bias of a particular study and actual findings..

I have not seen this particular study. This article just states journalists backed Democratic Party more than Republican Party.. This is only a statement. It appears when this study was done the Democratic candidate was stronger and more popular. Rest of factors that should be considered are not stated and are unknown.

So therefore, this statement alone reveals nothing, except Democratic candidate was more the choice at that time. I see no information given that is evidence for any news media bias. These are the real facts.

[CJ]

"The collusion between conservative politicians and conservative media is far more entrenched and organized than their liberal counterparts. "

The opposite is true. The collusion between liberal politicians and liberal media is far more entrenched and organized than their conservative counterparts

Recall, for example, ABC News' Political Director Mark Halperin wrote a memo that directed ABC reporters, anchors and producers to slant its coverage by downplaying the misstatements of Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry and by viewing negatively any misstatements by Republican candidate Bush.

"Why was a Fox News correspondant hired to work for the republican administration?"

Probably because hed do a better job than Dan Rather.

Why is the media strategist for Nixon/Reagan/HW Bush running a cable news channel"?

Fox news, fox news, fox news. All you have is Fox news to complain about. Why is a media strategist for nixon/reagan/bush is running fox? Because the owner, Murdoch hired him to do so.

Why was Stephanopoulos hired for ABC? Why was democrat operative Jennifer Loven hired for associated Press? Why did NBC hire Tim Russert ( once a top adviser to leading Democratic officeholders)? Why did MSNBC hire Chris Matthews (former speechwriter for Jimmy carter). I could go on forever with examples.

[indi]

Media bias is real all these years. But they haven't been very successful in the past influencing the voters towards the liberal candidates. I guess people is not as dump as the journalists think they are. A lot of people like Obama because they do not like Bush. Now, that is real dumb. Bush is not on the ticket and McCain is not Bush.

[Emily Wortham]

Just like trial lawyers, journalist tend to be radical liberals and of course Democrats. It is unfair that the media has about 75% favorable stories about one candidate while basisly covering the other candidate with negative reporting. This is happening in almost all the U.S. papers and TV reporting. There should be fair and equal treatment of presidential candidates instead of the media attempts to brainwash the voters. This is not Russia, Cuba, Venezuela, China, but this is America. There used to be fair and accurate reporting, but America has lost that. We no longer have a "free press"; it is a controlled press by radicals.

One story I have not read on the national news is out of Sugar Land, Tx. A couple were driving home and on their vehicle had an antiObama sticker. They notices a black woman starring at them and then following them home, parking behind their vehicle in the couple's driveway, getting out of her auto and stating that the couple were racist and that she (the black woman) would get someone to take care of the couple later. The black woman was cited by the police. A very liberal journalist wrote in this morning's paper that the antiObama sticker was not racist but was not in good taste. Well, if by chance (God please don't let this happen) Obama is elected, what will happen if he is criticised as Bush is criticised? Will the black people riot and call all of his nonsupporters racist? Voters who do not like Obama dislike him because they know he is a liar, arrogant, egotistical, a selfservicing person, and very pompous, inexperienced, thinks he knows it all even better than the U.S. generals and Chief of Staff. Race has very little to do with why folks will absolutely not vote for this liar. Obama already believes he will be moving into the White House next Jan. and (this is true) his campaign staff has started planning the Obamas' move into the White House.

[mark roth]

And where does the vast contributions to the Republicans by the owners of the media, including the Time's owners, and let's not forget the voice of the RNC, Rupert Murdoch's Fox News.

For that matter, who picked this headline?

mark

[CJ]

"Reporters may give marginally more to the Democratic Party"

What? "marginally" more? 235 to 20 is NOT "marginal". It's a MASSIVE difference.

[pacificGatePost]

POPPY FIELDS OF MASS DESTRUCTION ---- TIME TO AWAKEN

The beautiful and delicate poppy that now paints the landscapes of Afghanistan with vibrant colors, has long been the symbol for sacrifice. The aesthetic is as soothing to the sense of sight, as it is exasperating to the conscience.

http://pacificgatepost.blogspot.com/2008/04/poppy-fields-of-mass-destruction.html

Drastic action is required.

[wayne clemon]

democrat journalists more genouros than republican journalists, what republican journalists? i wasn't aware of any

[David Quigg]

Mr. Malcolm, you can do better. The "trenchant op-ed by William Tate" was nonsense. Think of the number of journalists in America. Now compare that very large number to paltry hundreds Tate claims to have found. The disparity between America's many journalists and Tate's few journalists tells the real story: political donations by working journalists is fringe behavior.

Mr. Malcolm, your headline refers to journalists' political donations as "mostly Democratic." Common sense suggests they are, in fact, "mostly nonexistent."

Does the L.A. Times permit its reporters to make political donations? Do you make political donations, Mr. Malcolm? I'd be astonished.

The papers where I worked prided themselves on the neutrality of their newsrooms. A reporter talking in the newsroom about a political donation he'd made would have been greeted with aghast silence, followed by yelling, followed by pariah status. He would have spent the rest of his short tenure covering garden shows -- certainly not politics.

Though I grew up liberal, the source I came to respect most was a Republican. Why? This particular Republican never, in any case I ever detected, spun the facts when speaking with me. He was intellectually honest. And that is refreshing beyond words inasmuch as intellectual honesty from sources is one of the things that helps a journalist to bring readers a clear picture of the world. Intellectual honesty is also rare in politics, which may be why so many political stories end up murky.

I'm out of journalism now. Fatherhood and a sense that the extremism of the Bush years might well spoil my kids' future have shaken me out of the political hibernation of my days as a reporter. But journalism left me with a gift: I'm still repelled by blindly partisan talk. I cringe most of all when people I agree with say dumb things on purpose to mislead people.

[Chuck]

It would be intellectually dishonest after the last week of news coverage to deny media bias in favor of Obama. The true debate should not be whether such bias actually exists but whether it works.

With so much coverage of Obama's travels, many people I spoke with were surprised to learn this guy can't put two coherent sentences together. Last week's media circus gave birth to Senator Ahhhh.

[dave]

(yes, some people did notice obama's presidential campaign logo. complete with the remodeling of the american flag as a 'new world order' keyhole tunnel vision. while the flag's colors are the same, they've been used by the campaign to show their very own colors. a quite ambitious 'false flag operation': the flag's colors are now used to cover what seems to indicate the world in red, white stripes converging in parallel alignment, denoting enforced conformity, and fields at harvest season. and a luminary rising out of, and into the blue, in the center of that world; the stars of the free and self-governed states erased, their authorities absorbed by the new superstar. and no luminaries left anywhere in space. a projection in a bubble, a virtual reality, real only to those trapped within. a 'divine sun' lacking true perspective, and eliminating the dimension of conscious self-reflection. this light is fake, not offering freedom and enlightenment, but burning the people's energy, while blinding them to their bondage. this bubble, its entrance sealed, its exit blocked by self-inflicted blindness, resembles a sarcophagus, a tomb and fiery furnace. enlightenment, and heavenly jerusalem - or nightmare, and living hell on earth?
that logo seems to be an update version of a certain historic red flag featuring a white disc with a black inverted swastika.)

[Harold Reimann]

OF COURSE!

[Joeboy]

So, let me get this straight. Political donations by journalists (and voting for that matter, given the tally in Bush v. Kerry) are dramatically skewed towards the Democrat. Overwhelmingly. So in the case put forth by William Tate is that is shows possible bias.

Your alternate explanation is Republicans are stingy. In the face of overwhelming numbers, you retreat to using invective.

Wow. You so effortless just proved Tate's whole point while trying to minimize it. Congratulations.

[Gekkobear]

Of course that last sentence is correct, this isn't an institutional bias, just cheap Republicans.

It's not like the media has a history of voting bias different from the country as a whole...

http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/biasbasics3.asp

Oh, ignore that link. It shows the voting habits of the media, how it strongly differs from the country as a whole, indicating institutional bias.

But I'm sure you're not on either side. Not on the side of the smart hip trendy Liberals, or the cheap, stupid, offensive Conservatives. Nope, you're as unbiased as everyone expected.

Oh wait, everyone expects that you're biased don't they?
http://www.zogby.com/News/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1262

Yep, well, you keep fooling the 40% who haven't already figured out the bias. Although why you bother I can't imagine.

If they haven't caught on by now, I can't see that you should be worried about them catching on regardless of what you print.

[Gekkobear]

"Maybe it's because most journalists have to have a degree, Malcolm. Educated and informed people tend to be Democrats.

Posted by: Ericmiam"

Exactly, polls consistently show Democrats winning large margins amongst postgraduate degree holders, and highschool dropouts.

Well, go back to 2004 and compare the last Presidential election. you know, the data is available so I don't have to go with my "feelings" on this one. where did Democrats win and lose, based on education?

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/H/00/epolls.0.html

In 2004 Democrats lose every category above HS dropout except Postgraduate degree holders. Yep, more education = Republican, right up until you dedicate the rest of your life to education; then it switches back.

But hey, I'm sure your feelings outweigh facts, polls, information, or reality. So lets go with your answer. Facts are irrelevant, data is useless, and Republicans are stupid.

Weird that the smart group of highly educated people is the one that refuses to use facts when making an argument. I guess you're too smart for facts or reality.